network profile
| bio | website | |
|---|---|---|
| location | United States | |
| age | ||
| visits | member for | 1 year, 7 months |
| seen | Oct 24 '11 at 4:43 | |
| stats | profile views | 0 |
|
Sep 28 |
awarded | Scholar |
|
Sep 28 |
accepted | What is wrong with using SHA1 in digital signatures? Why is a robust hash function needed? |
|
Sep 28 |
comment |
What is wrong with using SHA1 in digital signatures? Why is a robust hash function needed? Paŭlo ... Okay, my question is now answered, but for my own further understanding ... what is the protection method again this? Basically the Hash cannot be trusted. How can I bind the Hash to the public key? Make a hash of the Hash + Public key? I don't know, my head hurts. |
|
Sep 28 |
comment |
What is wrong with using SHA1 in digital signatures? Why is a robust hash function needed? Paŭlo, Ahhh, I see ... and this would only matter if the contents of this new "forged" message were dangerous. Basically, you could make it look like I signed something that I did not. Am I correct in this? |
|
Sep 28 |
comment |
What is wrong with using SHA1 in digital signatures? Why is a robust hash function needed? What if I control the signing totally? By this I mean, I create the Public, Private, Message, and Hash all behind closed doors ... then I sign the message. Next, I give away the message and public key. I will never "sign" again or even try to verify. Only people with the Public Key and Message will try to verify with what I just gave them on a silver platter. In this context, I'm unsure how I could be effected by SHA 1 weaknesses. If this sounds silly, it is just because I don't have my head around it yet. |
|
Sep 28 |
awarded | Supporter |
|
Sep 28 |
awarded | Student |
|
Sep 28 |
asked | What is wrong with using SHA1 in digital signatures? Why is a robust hash function needed? |
